Saturday, July 30, 2005
Sensible Gun Legislation
Gun Manufacturers Can Relax a bit Now
We are about to have signed legislation stopping frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers of guns. That this lawsuit was necessary is a blight on the common sense of gun control advocates. They had hoped to halt gun sales and ammunition sales through multiple lawsuits that would cripple the industry. Obviously, advocates for the Second Amendment, sportsmen, target shooters, and gun collectors, together with many of the 60 million gun owners in the US, rose up and demanded that such practices be stopped. Now it will!
Isn't it obvious that a manufacturer who lawfully makes and sells their products on the market has no control over who uses the product and how they use it? Of course the manufacturers have product warranties to uphold against defective parts and operation of their product, just as any other manufacturer. They also are obliged to adhere to many laws regarding the sale and distribution of weapons in the nation.
But to think that they should be sued because of some nut's use of their weapon is simply silly! I suppose that next we will see auto, cutlery, swingset, bathtub, rope, ATV, and every other manufacturer whose product just might be used to maim or kill people be sued as well.
Who made the candlestick in the parlor?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Why Iraq?
Here's One Opinion as to Why
What is the common thread between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt?
Islam.
What is it about Islam that makes it so militant and willing to kill people: men women and children -- deliberately?
The tenets of the religion of Muhammad as stated in the Koran. We are, to them, dirt under their feet.
Well, isn't there a sect of Islam that is extreme, fundamentalist and dangerous? Aren't they the cause of all the ruckus?
They, the Wahhabists, are the spear-carriers of the Muslim movement to Islamicize the world and create the NeoCaliphate.
What about OBL and AQ?
Mere spear-carriers. They are the undercover arm of the Wahabbists, and are funded by Saudi petrodollars. The Saudis want to keep us on the string for as long as possible.
So who is the real enemy?
Islam.
We are fighting huge numbers of Muslims that support the idea of a neoCaliphate, and abhor the West both for who they are as well as for what they do. Most Muslims give at least tacit support to the movement, if you haven't noticed.
Then why did we attack Iraq and not another of the Islamic countries after the Afghanistan invasion?
1. Iraq is geopolitically in the heart of Islamic countries. It would be virtually impossible for the militant Muslims to abandon Iraq to democracy, since that would have grave consequences for all of the Islamic nations. They must fight there. Better to fight there than in the US, from our point of view. It is working out that way.
2. Saddam was a bad actor and he should have been removed in any event. 22 indictments were cited against him, only one of which was WMD. He coveted Saudi oil for himself, and sooner or later would try for it again.
3. It was thought that we couldn't take on the lot of them all at the same time, mainly for geopolitical and logistical reasons, plus the sorry state of depletion Clinton left the military.
The grand strategy is to divide them apart geographically and defeat them in detail as we go along, as and IF it becomes necessary. The Coalition is making progress.
Then too, a frontal attack on them all would be seen as a grab for control of the entire Middle East for its oil. This would ruffle a few feathers in Russia and China.
4. As the reality of being able to stand up for freedom and democracy by the people in Islamic countries takes hold, especially in Iraq now, and that they can force governments to relax their religious hold via Shaira law, we may never have to fight them. Progress in this direction is evident as well in Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, and even to some degree in Iran.
5. The fundamental argument is between accepting a form of secular democracy that omits Sharia law, and a forced form of tyranny by Islamics that imposes Sharia law. That is the key battle in Iraq right now as they write their Constitution, and we have seen one draft that tries to impose Shaira law again.
6. For any nation, a form of democracy is far preferable to bloody tyranny, and would tend to achieve much greater stability and peace in the entire world. There are no important instances in history of two democracies fighting each other, according to the Military Historian, Victor Davis Hanson.
This is a noble objective to strive for now, and it had to begin somewhere --
Afghanistan, and now Iraq.
Here's One Opinion as to Why
What is the common thread between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt?
Islam.
What is it about Islam that makes it so militant and willing to kill people: men women and children -- deliberately?
The tenets of the religion of Muhammad as stated in the Koran. We are, to them, dirt under their feet.
Well, isn't there a sect of Islam that is extreme, fundamentalist and dangerous? Aren't they the cause of all the ruckus?
They, the Wahhabists, are the spear-carriers of the Muslim movement to Islamicize the world and create the NeoCaliphate.
What about OBL and AQ?
Mere spear-carriers. They are the undercover arm of the Wahabbists, and are funded by Saudi petrodollars. The Saudis want to keep us on the string for as long as possible.
So who is the real enemy?
Islam.
We are fighting huge numbers of Muslims that support the idea of a neoCaliphate, and abhor the West both for who they are as well as for what they do. Most Muslims give at least tacit support to the movement, if you haven't noticed.
Then why did we attack Iraq and not another of the Islamic countries after the Afghanistan invasion?
1. Iraq is geopolitically in the heart of Islamic countries. It would be virtually impossible for the militant Muslims to abandon Iraq to democracy, since that would have grave consequences for all of the Islamic nations. They must fight there. Better to fight there than in the US, from our point of view. It is working out that way.
2. Saddam was a bad actor and he should have been removed in any event. 22 indictments were cited against him, only one of which was WMD. He coveted Saudi oil for himself, and sooner or later would try for it again.
3. It was thought that we couldn't take on the lot of them all at the same time, mainly for geopolitical and logistical reasons, plus the sorry state of depletion Clinton left the military.
The grand strategy is to divide them apart geographically and defeat them in detail as we go along, as and IF it becomes necessary. The Coalition is making progress.
Then too, a frontal attack on them all would be seen as a grab for control of the entire Middle East for its oil. This would ruffle a few feathers in Russia and China.
4. As the reality of being able to stand up for freedom and democracy by the people in Islamic countries takes hold, especially in Iraq now, and that they can force governments to relax their religious hold via Shaira law, we may never have to fight them. Progress in this direction is evident as well in Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, and even to some degree in Iran.
5. The fundamental argument is between accepting a form of secular democracy that omits Sharia law, and a forced form of tyranny by Islamics that imposes Sharia law. That is the key battle in Iraq right now as they write their Constitution, and we have seen one draft that tries to impose Shaira law again.
6. For any nation, a form of democracy is far preferable to bloody tyranny, and would tend to achieve much greater stability and peace in the entire world. There are no important instances in history of two democracies fighting each other, according to the Military Historian, Victor Davis Hanson.
This is a noble objective to strive for now, and it had to begin somewhere --
Afghanistan, and now Iraq.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Oh, the Humanity!
"If wishes were horses, all beggars would ride!" -- Unknown
In the last months, I have encountered people on the web who puzzle me greatly.
They are pacifists. True Pacifism is alien to me, perhaps because I was brought up during World War II in a military family. Several of my Uncles were in the services with my Father, and the wives everywhere we were based pitched in to help the war effort in whatever way they could find. A Conscientious Objector was a rare thing then, and they received the scorn of most.
The great puzzle to me is, what do they offer as an alternative to our current strife? We have a dedicated enemy who executes people in skyscrapers and other buildings with no regard for their humanity. One of their leaders, Osama bin Laden, whines that we should abandon the Israelis, remove ourselves from the Middle East altogether, and change our policies regarding Muslims completely. Then there would be peace. On what basis should I, or anyone else, believe him? Such a withdrawal in the face of bombing threats is sheer blackmail. Past experience with blackmailers is that they always come back for more. His very religion states that Muslims can do what they want with infidels: lie, cheat, steal, or even kill them. He is not to be believed.
But the pacifist claims we should go ahead and withdraw, seeking peace with Islam at whatever the cost. This is the same philosophy that Neville Chamberlain espoused when he claimed "Peace in our time!" after he came from his meeting with Hitler in Munich. Fifty million deaths and five years later, we had an armed peace, Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium and France were destroyed, and untold misery had been visited on the people of Europe by the occupation of their countries.
Today, we have a different view. If a Hitler do-alike pops up on our screen, we react first, and ensure that he doesn't go any further. We have adopted the philosophy of preemption. We have strengthened our belief in the value of freedom for all people. The pacifist bemoans this approach, saying "there must be a better way! We need to talk more, and negotiate more."
I think twelve years of talking, negotiating, and sanctions being violated is quite enough. The time had come to enforce the UN resolutions, but, of course, the UN was immobilized by France and Germany.
But the pacifist drones and moans on. We are killing innocent people by the thousands! some of his claims are even false on this, but in truth, we have killed bystanders who didn't have the sense to get out of town. That is war. "You don't care about this loss of life," they claim. We do care, and have taken the most extrodinary precautions to avoid civilian casualties. But we press on, because we believe in the cause of freedom for the Iraqi people.
The pacifist screams: "You are inhuman!" I say we are saving countless men, woman, and children from a life that is zero, and a high probability of death by a tyrant. It is worth the pain and anguish.
But the pacifist wishes on.
If wishes were horses....
Saturday, July 23, 2005
The Blind Men and the Elephant
First Encounter
They started out from England to find a tract in Africa where they could build a compound for themselves. The fifty men were led by ten fully-sighted former soldiers, another ten who had imperfect sight -- one-eyed and near-sighted fellows – and the final group of thirty, who were either seriously impaired or totally blind. There were five wagons loaded with supplies, materials, and tools, each pulled by six mules in their train. Most of the men walked in the hot sun.
The compound’s architecture and plan they had paid for was designed to be easily built, and easy to live in by the blind, and would be completely self-sufficient, even though it was to be located not far from the Serengeti. The men were fed up with living in towns where they were looked upon as poor, unfortunate fellows in need of charity. Some were happy to escape the law as well.
They trekked for days into ever more sparse country, until they spotted a small range of hills in the distance. There was greenery on the hillsides, which offered the promise of water, trees and tillable land nearby. As they came near, they found a flat area close to the beginning hill rises that appeared to be quite suitable for a camp, and possibly their hoped for permanent site. So they set up the camp, cared for the mules, and fell into their tents, exhausted from the long journey.
At sunrise, the first soldier up came out of his tent and stretched before starting for the fire. His eyes finally focused on a huge animal standing in the plains area about a hundred yards away. He moved quietly back into his tent to wake up his mates and to pick up his rifle. They moved softly around to each tent awakening the group. Soon all the group were standing in a semicircle around the beast, with the soldiers and others that could still aim well-enough all armed and ready.
What is it? They cried. What sort of animal is this? The ten soldiers bravely advanced towards the animal, guns at the ready, and began to examine this phenomena.
“It is a marvelous beast!” exclaimed the Leader, “it has the body of a whale, legs like tree trunks, an extraordinary long nose, ears like stunted wings, and white horns on either side of a smiling mouth.
“It isn’t shy in the least, said the Leader, it is standing here letting us come near and look!: With that, the blind men walked up to the beast and began to touch it and rub their hands over its skin to build their own image of this thing. The Leader proceeded to describe every aspect of the beast he could see to his blind friends.
They all soon came to the inescapable fact that this was a very new and different kind of animal in their experience.
“We shall call it “Elephant” said one man, “it needs a name.” The Elephant, meanwhile, just stood there, eyeing the group, switching its tail, and occasionally flapping its big ears, as they went over him thoroughly. A few began to sit down around the Elephant at a respectful distance and continue to gaze at him, as if to memorize every inch of this wonderful specimen of African wildlife.
The Leader called the other soldiers aside and in a soft voice began to speculate about this Elephant that had sneaked up on them in the night.
“Where did he come from, asked the Leader. Did any of you hear something in the night?” I wonder why he is here now. Did we draw him to us? Are there more of them around? If so, where are they? The soldiers peered at the distant horizon intently all around, but could see no more elephants.
“It looks and acts friendly, I wonder if it is really friendly or are we being duped,” asked the Leader? No one answered. Still, the Elephant stood his ground and placidly swung his ears and tail at flies.
They began to ignore the Elephant and talk about the area and plan to look for water nearby, and to test the dirt with their farmer’s touch. The day wore on as they talked and talked about their plans.
“Let us rest today,” said the Leader, “we will start the explorations in the morning, ” as he curiously eyed the Elephant for a moment. The Elephant looked back.
So the group settled down, looking to reset the tents to make shady spots to rest in; they were soon drowsy and then overcome by sleep, including the Leader. An hour passed peacefully.
The Elephant suddenly raised its trunk to the sky and gave forth a tremendously loud trumpeting sound – then did it again and again!
The men came awake immediately, the soldiers fumbling with their guns and running to form a protective ring around the group.
“What could it mean, one asked? Is he hungry? Does he need water? Is it mad at us for something?”
“Should we shoot it,?” asked a soldier, alarmed by the mad sound of the trumpeting Elephant.
Then one soldier said: “Look! Look at the horizon!” Huge dust clouds rose in the afternoon sun as an enormous herd of elephants came from all directions at a running pace, trumpeting as they came, in response to the Elephant’s calls.
The soldiers took up defensive positions and started firing at the oncoming herd. One or two of the running elephants fell, but tens more came on in a rush to overwhelm the men, grab them with their trunks and throw them high in the air. When the men came down, the elephants would stomp them into the dirt. It was a dance of death from which all but one succumbed.
The survivor, one of the soldiers, who had luckily been thrown near a wagon and had hidden under it, struggled to his feet after the herd had gone. He knew he had to get away from that place quickly, and fortunately found that several mules and a wagon had not been harmed. He scouted around for the rifles and ammunition of the other soldiers, and all of the water bottles he could find, before starting his trek back. That was when he stumbled upon a sign down on the ground beyond the flat area where they hadn’t explored. It had been trampled almost to pieces.
The sign said: Beware! Animal Burial Grounds! A picture of an elephant had been drawn crudely on the sign. Cut into the sign was a further message:
These animals defend this site to the death! It is their holy place. Do not stay here! Leave now! They are watching!
Friday, July 22, 2005
Booklist
These books I consider to be hugely worth reading. Recommended:
1. Why We Fight -- William Bennett
2. What Went Wrong -- Bernard Lewis
3. Imperial Hubris -- Anonymous
4. Alpha and Omega -- Charles Seife
5. Unholy Alliance -- David Horowitz
6. The Politics of Bad Faith -- David Horowitz
7. Inventing Reality -- Michael Parenti
8. Useful Idiots -- Mona Charen
9. Shut Up and Sing - Laura Ingraham
10. Constitutional Chaos -- Andrew Napolitano
11. The Art of War -- Sun-tzu
12. The Conservative Mind -- Russell Kirk
13. The Pentagon's New Map -- Thomas P.M. Barnett
14. How Now Shall We Live -- Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey
15. Neoconservatism -- Irving Kristol
16. Persecution -- David Limbaugh
17. The Lexus and the Olive Tree -- Thomas L. Friedman
Thursday, July 21, 2005
There Comes a Time When You Must Face It Down
The Bully
When I was about nine years old, there was a local Bully that terrorized the Georgetown neighborhood I lived in. All of us were really afraid of him. He regularly beat up one of our group when he caught them alone.
One Sunday morning, I went to the store for my Mother, and on the way back, I was stopped by the Bully. He seized me from behind and forced me to drop what I had gone for, and then began squeezing me very hard, trying to take my breath away, all the while making half giggles and grunts from his foul-smelling mouth.
Something changed in me then. With a strength I didn't know I had, I turned around in his grasp, grabbed his collar with my left hand, and hit him as hard as I could with my right hand. He let go of me. I hit him two more times in the mouth really hard, because I was free of his hold and could set my feet better. Blood smeared his face. He backed away with wide, startled eyes, and went flying into his house, never to bother me or the others again. I even remember his first name: Billy.
Billy needed a good whipping to straighten him up. I picked up my sack and went home. My right hand hurt for a few days though.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The B-58 Hustler was the first aircraft program I worked on. It was that ELINT collection pod carried under the fuselage, and its ground processing, that occupied me for most of two years. It was a beautiful plane!
Monday, July 18, 2005
Democrats and Framing
Now Dishonesty has a Label: Framing!
The whole concept of "framing" a position seems directly related to picking the right colors for a package of cereal. It is purely an advertizing gimmick that Americans are very used to now. But the Democrats are in love with the idea of framing, because if they can succeed in framing their positions they won't have to alter one whit of their real positions, just as that cereal is the same old corn flakes every year.
They will let the frame or box or package carry their presumably attractive external message, and only surface their real intentions after the election. Much as Hillary is doing now: she is framing herself as a moderate with seemingly strong words on defense and other efforts designed to frame her for the coming elections. She is trying to convince enough people that she has moved to the right, when anyone that knows Hillary knows just how dedicated to the Left she is. And what a hellion behind the scenes, too!
The Democrats need something to run on because all they have done for the past years is obstruct the Bush agenda. But no ideas have percolated to the Democratic top as strong as the simple, direct, and effective Republican thrusts for : a strong military; a smaller government; less taxes; more jobs; and family values.
Bill Clinton espoused a 30% cut in defense spending, and achieved a lessening of our combat readiness by a factor of two. We have suffered ever since. Think of him as Co-President once more!
No one believes that the democrats are for smaller government. They never have been. Hillary tried to foster off on us an enormous health plan that would have created a bureauocracy bigger than the three largest government departments are now, excepting DOD.
One remembers the Democrats as the Tax-and-Spend party. Keep on remembering that!
During the economic cycles we have bobbled through, one fact became clear: reduction of taxes meant more jobs, simply because both small and large enterprises had more of their earnings to invest in manpower, products and manufacturing tools. Especially the smaller enterprises, where the difference of 8 men versus 10 men, given a decent tax break, is immediately felt in greater productivity.
We know what family values are for the Left faction of the Democratic Party. They are anti-family, anti-marriage ( they reject the thought that marriage is only between a man and a woman), pro abortion, all for gay rights (whatever that means; if they are citizens, what do they lack?), and all for having the UN become all powerful over us ( and extremely able to divert our money to their pockets), so we won't go make war and kill people anymore.
Unreal! So be warned! You will have to look hard at the frames from the Democrats in the next years, and perhaps be able to unravel what they are really on about by tough questioning. It won't be easy!
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Multiculturalism
What is Wrong with Assimilation?
The idea of multiculturalism in the US has been bubbling to the surface for years, to the point where the real meaning of such an anti-American stance has become much clearer. We are being told to believe that all cultures are equal, and that none should have preference over another. I would ask these dictators of our society in what way is the culture of a far off land that is still primitive anywhere near the equal to American culture? The sorry fact is that such cultures are not equal by any rational measure. So you say, well that is not what was meant exactly. So you meant that there were some cultures that are equal and others that are not?
In America, we have had for centuries whole sections of cities that were taken over by immigrants. These foreign communities served as a home for those who didn't speak acceptable English, and a haven where they could speak their native tongue and be understood for all of the necessities and social contacts of their lives. Gradually, however, successive generations of their families broke out from the communities and began to be assimilated into the common way of life in America. The older members who became rooted in the community, and perhaps never were able to learn English acceptably, stayed behind within their comfort zone. The time came when more of their people lived outside of the community than inside. They were ever more assimilated culturally into the mainstream. This is a typical American story.
But now we face a strong push to forego assimilation in favor of promoting the culture of the immigrants as not only equal, but deserving of local, state, and national government support.
This support comes in many guises: Affording multiple language tracks in schools; printing all government documents in multiple languages; allowing street signs to be given in several languages; and even reworking road signs for the foreign-born to understand ( this fact is useful, of course, to support tourism). Courts have been forced to employ translators to ensure that foreigners (even those who have been resident in the US for 20 years!) have access to the proceedings in their own language. Soon we might have Bastille Day, Cinco de Mayo, and something from many other lands to celebrate their unique cultural contributions to the world, but here in the US because of the concentration of their ex-homelanders in America.
Then will come the renaming pushes within their areas of concentration, and the erasure of the former US territory signs and symbols. Mexicalifornia comes to mind, remembering the book by Victor Davis Hanson. Our uniquely American identity will be scrambled together with asian, latino, and muslim identities in a most displeasing manner, first, because their cultures are simply not American, their attitudes have not been assimilated, and their value systems have not been modified to fit into American values.
Their moral compasses are not pointing to our North. So they act as they would if in their own land, or as they would if in a foreign land they do not respect enough to learn how to assimilate. Finally, their respect for the law in America may well be lacking to say the least. This is the road to disaster. One can see this clearly from the fact that 40% of the prison inmates in California are illegal immigrants. I do not believe in Open Borders.
Assimilation is coupled with the illegal immigration problem very strongly, where we have now some 11 million Mexicans roaming the country without the legal right to be here, and with no intent to conform to our way of life any more than necessary. The solutions being proposed for this part of the problem must include damming up the borders, severely punishing the businessmen who hire illegals, empowering local and state police to deal with illegals, and deporting wholesale all of the illegals we can find.
Amnesty is not a solution. Perhaps an effective sponsorship program can be worked out where businesses put up large bonds on each foreign worker hired to ensure return to the worker's own country when the work is finished. The size of the bond should be 20 times the actual wage paid or higher, thus potentially bankrupting the business if too many foreign employees skip out and disappear into the underground.
The official language for the US should be English, full stop. For legal immigrants, they should learn English within one to two years, and learn the basics of American history and culture, or be inelligible for citizenship. It should be the law that foreigners immigrate legally, and make every effort to assimilate, or be denied US citizenship. In some cases, they should be deported as well, especially those who break our laws.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Christianity versus Scientific Naturalism
God is Alive and Well in America.
Jesus lives! Despite many years of drifting towards scientific naturalism, people are looking at the results of living such a belief and are turning away in droves. What this atheistic belief has done is to disable the moral rudder that keeps society on track, civil and virtuous.
People are simply horrified at the results of our schools, where students are taught a biased ideology that can only be described as anti-American, are not taught the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic well-enough, and are not taught American values, American history, and civic duties. They are not being instilled with a love of God, love of country, and love of our people, but rather, the grim, godless, and nihilistic philosophy that comes from Marx and Engels, however verbally disguised it is in the teaching.
Fully half of the people in the last election were mesmerized by the promises of a golden era of free everything -- free college, free healthcare, a generous safety-net, free child care, and more generous social security benefits for everyone, no more war, acceptance of diminished sovereignty of the US in favor of the UN, and renewed friendships with France and Germany, and guaranteed jobs for all! The terrorists would go away because we would retreat from involvement in the Middle East, and the Global War on Terror (GWOT) would be cycled down to a mild roar, if not stopped altogether.
If you believed this nonsense, shame on you! We cannot afford such manna rained down on lower and middle class citizens, to be extracted from the upper class rich and large corporations as an unjust redistribution of wealth. Fortunately, the majority of Americans saw through this giveaway platform as being crass vote-buying, and voted the party down. Nor can we quit the GWOT and the support to the new Iraqi government, else we would face being shamed for a century for not living up to our promises, and would give the Islamic terrorists an enormous boost in their quest for control of the entire globe.
For a while, atheists and their kin thought they had found the way to power, through the Supreme Court, but the Court has, by its decisions of late, shown its true colors. The predictable result of that will be the seating of one or two conservative, constitutionalists on the court in the next months.
Scientific naturalism (SN) claims that there is no God, that the universe was formed by natural cause and effect rules, and that we were likewise formed by natural selection and survival of the fittist rules given to us by Charles Darwin. Darwinian Evolution has been the mantra of the SN clan, and they have fought vicious battles to prevent any other view of the origins of mankind to be heard in public discourse. Views such as Creation of the universe and man by God as set forth in Genesis. These views are relegated by them to the churches and homes of the believers ; all other religious symbols and statements should be banished from public places. The Supreme Court has so far helped their cause, but a new day is coming!
This Scientific Naturalism is, in fact, nonsense. Man is reduced to a mechanism operated by natural rules, except for one class of beings -- scientists themselves. The scientists are the only ones that can work outside of the natural system, that they are capable of rational thought, and that they can break through the barriers of natural cause and effect to get at the truth. This means that the scientists make for themselves an exception to their own rules of nature.
The second deadly sin of SN is their attempt to explain everything in terms of natural forces.
SN claims that all ideas are products of of natural causes in the brain. This must perforce include the idea of Scientific Naturalism itself. Thus if SN is true, then it is not a rational thought and must be discredited, since it is a result of random and irrational physical processes in the brain.
"Any theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible." -- C. S. Lewis.
God is Alive and Well.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
A Concept for Security in Iraq
Iraqi Security
I have set down a few ideas about what I believe should happen in major cities in Iraq at the order of the Iraqi government. These ideas are not complete, but they do stem from reporting on repetitive insurgent activities. The main intent of these restrictions is to reduce the possibility of bomb attacks and insurgent attacks on key facilities, and to reduce the number of people exposed to attack. The idea would be to gradually let up on the restrictions as insurgent activity lessened, or the reverse if needed. The basic thrust is that of Martial Law, but relaxed a few degrees.
The Iraqi government ought to institute a curfew that is strictly enforced. Anyone seen after curfew should be subject to arrest, or if armed, shot on sight. No autos should be allowed to be driven on the streets during curfew. This should make planting IEDs and setting autos in place to explode on command more difficult. Certain areas should be off limits to anyone not authorized to be there on pain of being shot.
Any auto driver should have full credentials with him, including picture ID license, registration of the auto, with should be coupled to the car manufacturer's number, and bill of sale for the auto. A home address and telephone number should be available for checking the validity of the permit. If stopped, his credentials will be checked, and if they are not correct, the auto will be searched and impounded, and he will be sent to jail. No exceptions. Any weapons or explosives found will result in arrest and trial of the driver. Checkpoints should be set up where there is a minimum of foot and vehicle traffic nearby.
Both permanent and random checkpoints should be instituted throughout the area or city, as well as stops by police for suspicion anywhere. This might help stop auto bombers before they ride into the city. Certain areas should be closed to auto traffic completely, except by permit.
Major cities should be declared Weapons Free Zones. Full searches of buildings and homes for hidden weapons should be undertaken on a random basis, with the punishment for having a weapon in one's possession at a minimum of 10 years in prison, to a maximum of execution if the weapons cache is more than some minimum number, or ammo of a large amount. If found, an RPG, explosives, hand grenades, mortars or mortar rounds or a heavy machinegun should result in execution. Anyone carrying a weapon that is not identifiable as a police or armed forces member should be shot on sight.
Police Stations should be set back from the roads and surrounded by non-moveable concrete barriers except for entrance traps. Gatherings of more than some number of policemen in the Station at a time should be prevented if possible. All persons wanting to enter the Station must be searched for explosives and weapons at the barrier gate, and then given a proper pass. Fortified watchtowers and day/night surveillance monitors should be manned continuously to alert the men of an attack.
All busses and trucks entering the city must be searched for weapons and explosives. All busses and trucks in the city are subject to stop and search. Public transport and service vehicles will be searched daily by their maintenance personnel, and may be stopped and searched by police as well. It might be feasible to blockade many roads entering the city to force vehicle traffic into convenient channels where inspections will occur.
All mosques and schools, and other potential gathering places will be searched daily for weapons, explosives and potential insurgents. The mosque or other authorities will be held responsible for any such items that are found, and they will be arrested, tried and sentenced. For a major infraction, the penalty is death.
Gatherings away from a mosque of more than five people, excepting children, should be forbidden, unless they have been issued a permit to meet by the local police good for that meeting only. Waiting in line for a bus is permitted. Attendance at schools is permitted. Working in a building is permitted. Visiting a museum where more than five people are present is permitted. Shopping in stores and attending movies is permitted. Job applicants, such as for the police force must be first searched and then sent to a secure area to await processing, and not be allowed to wait in long lines on the street. Other permits will be granted as the situation warrants.
Once the car bomber has been seriously hindered, the major threat will be from individual suicide bombers. Perhaps the traditional robe dress of Iraqis must be forbidden, in favor of high visibility of the person's body, so that explosives or unusual bulges in their clothes could be used to detect them. This should be true for women too. Get rid of burkas and veils! Many bomb-sniffing dogs should be imported and used to screen people randomly at places such as theaters, restaurants, and stores, and around parked autos everywhere.
Auto and foot patrols should be instituted using bomb-resistant vehicles and armor for personnel. Foot patrols should be carried out with a minimum of five men to start with, and preferably seven or eight men, fully armed with automatic rifles. This can be reduced later to two men in well-ordered areas. No city street should be without a patrol presence for longer than an hour, and preferably a half hour. Surveillance of most streets by TV cameras should be considered.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Millinia Lost
Temples and institutions of empire crumbling and useful only to tourists and professors of antiquity remember their past while mulling their bleak future.
Caesars and senators, gladiators and soldiers marched here, but are seldom revived on the parchments of the past, unless they be heroes or villains, men of great wisdom, or men of conquest.
Their message is clear: you too can fall. You too can overreach, become complaisant, fat, and lazy, lose the warrior's edge, and the courage in battle that marked your glory.
Be on guard for the heathens that snoop at your gates, attack your fartherest outposts, and still have the hunger for power and glory and empire that you have lost.
Sic transit gloria!
Monday, July 11, 2005
Rousseau
Philosophy
Notes on Rousseau
January 11, 2002 (Revised July 11, 2005)
1. Man is naturally good, but becomes corrupted by society. The exact quote is “Man is naturally good, but our social institutions have rendered him evil.” Discourse on the Sciences and Arts.
2. Human nature is best prior to and apart from social institutions: that people are naturally loving, virtuous, and selfless; and that it is society, with its artificial rules and conventions, that makes them envious, hypocritical, and competitive. See, The Social Contract, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, and Discourse on Inequality. (thus, he rejected the concept of Original Sin and Christian Morality. See 11. below)
3. He rejected anything that limited the freedom of the inner self. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (The Social Contract) He called for freedom from the chain of institutions, rules, customs, and traditions. He ascribed to the romantic notion of the “infinite perfectibility of man, ” which has been derided ever since in conservative philosophy. We have all too many examples of "perfectibility" from the history of mankind.
4. The revolution is between the society and the state. Between family, church, class, and local community, versus the all-powerful State(=Sovereign = the will of the citizens en masse) as savior!
5. Each person should be completely independent from his fellow man, and fully dependent on the state. In fact, he advocated that each member turn over to the state all property not needed for his living. (SC) The Sovereign State controls all.This is Socialism/Collectivism/Communism.
6. Since human nature is undefined, there are no moral principles limiting the state’s ambitions. The State need not treat its citizens justly or unjustly, but as it sees the situation at the moment. There are no moral limitations on the State’s use of power. In other words, moral relativism. Whatever the Sovereign and the citizens declare to be law is law. Conversely, what has not been declared to be law is not law, 3,000 years of the history of natural law notwithstanding.
7. There being no other way to create such a citizenry, with such a common will, and hence such a Sovereign, this philosophy advocates the complete overthrow of existing society and its total destruction in order to build a new society from scratch. Thus also invoking the idea of justifying present actions by the future goals of building a perfect society( but which can never happen in the real world, as example after example proves.).
8. He believed that one should throw off the constraints of society and explore your inner self, your natural, spontaneous self. (Discourse on Inequality, and Confessions)( he was a Bohemian, and had many mistresses, before settling down with Therese, with whom he had 5 bastard children.)
9. Responsibility for rearing and educating children should be taken away from parents and be given to the State. (his five children were left on the doorstep of the local orphanage, since he was not willing to be a parent. Most babies left in this orphanage died soon after entering, which was known to Rousseau. (Confessions)
10. He believed in conformance to the General Will – merger of individual wills into a grand sum will. The people who rejected the General Will must be forced to be free. (SC)
The General Will is the linchpin of this philosophy of government. There have been numerous papers that deride this idea as being infantile, unrealizable, and unstable. Most see it as degenerating into tyranny once the first strong-willed person manages to acquire the very first foothold on power. Many see it as tyranny to begin with, in that you are forced to accept it, and obey its tenets, or else leave.
(Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Leo Strauss, among many other political philosophers, were negative on Rousseau and his Contract.)
11. “ The subjects then owe the sovereign an account of their opinions only to such an extent that they matter to the community. Now it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion. That will make him love his duty, but the dogmas of that religion concern the state and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the duties he who professes them is bound to do to others.” (SC) Thus, Rousseau is giving the Sovereign full rule over the moral lives of citizens, but kindly leaving the afterlife to such religion as any citizen wishes to follow. He is thereby usurping the Ten Commandments and Natural Law, and he rejected the concepts of Original Sin and Christian Morality.)
These ideas sparked the Reign of Terror in France headed by Robespierre, and the imprisonment of 300,000 nobles, priests and political dissidents, and the deaths of 17,000 citizens in a year.
The same pattern was adopted by Marx , Lenin, And Stalin, where the General Will was replaced by the State.
Voltaire, after reading his Discourse on Inequality wrote to Rousseau “ I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such cleverness used in making us all stupid! One longs, when reading the book, to walk on all fours.!
Myths About the War in Iraq--John Hawkins
Myths of the War
In a most prescient manner, John Hawkins thoroughly debunks the current myths promoted by Bush haters. Here is his leadin:
"Myths debunked in this column include:
1) George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion.
3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century.
5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.
6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism.
7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.
8) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.
Click here to read the column."
Many of these myths I have fought myself in just about the same terms either here, or in one of the blogs I post in. I offer the link here in the hope that many others will read the full article.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Notes on Rousseau
Philosophy
January 11, 2002
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Basics
1. Man is naturally good, but becomes corrupted by society.
2. Human nature is best prior to and apart from social institutions: that people are naturally loving, virtuous, and selfless; and that it is society, with its artificial rules and conventions, that makes them envious, hypocritical, and competitive. See, The Social Contract. (thus, he rejected the concept of Original Sin and Christian Morality.)
3. He rejected anything that limited the freedom of the inner self. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” He called for freedom from the chain of institutions, rules, customs, and traditions.
4. The revolution is between the society and the state. Between family, church, class, and local community, versus the all-powerful State as savior!
5. Each person should be completely independent from his fellow man, and fully dependent on the state.
6. Since human nature is undefined, there are no moral principles limiting the state’s ambitions. The State need not treat its citizens justly or unjustly, but as it sees the situation at the moment. There are no moral limitations on the State’s use of power. In other words, moral relativism.
7. This philosophy then, advocates the complete overthrow of existing society and its total destruction in order to build a new society from scratch. Thus also invoking the idea of justifying present actions by the future goals of building a perfect society( but which can never happen in the real world as example after example proves.).
8. He believed that one should throw off the constraints of society and explore your inner self, your natural, spontaneous self. ( he was a Bohemian, and had many mistresses, before settling down with Therese, with whom he had 5 bastard children.)
9. Responsibility for rearing and educating children should be taken away from parents and be given to the State. (his five children were left on the doorstep of the local orphanage, since he was not willing to be a parent. Most babies left in this orphanage died soon after entering, which was known to Rousseau.)
10.He believed in conformance to the General Will – merger of individual wills into a grand sum will. The people who rejected the General Will must be forced to be free.
11.These ideas sparked the Reign of Terror in France headed by Robespierre, and the imprisonment of 300,000 nobles, priests and political dissidents, and the deaths of 17,000 citizens in a year.
12. The same pattern was adopted by Marx , Lenin, And Stalin, where the General Will was replaced by the State.
13. Such a philosophy leads directly to tyranny, as we have seen.
It is amazing to me that there are still people who sign up to this barbaric philosophy and advocate its tenets for the US!
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
World Map
Iraq and the Withdrawal Idiots
The Job is Not Over
We are erecting a large home in Iraq for its citizens. It may be that we will need to have several wings in the house, plus a main structure that combines all of the central functions of the home.
The design of the house is not complete; as yet there is no master plan, but enough is specified to begin building the main part and some of the wings. The Iraqi are creating the plan now.
Hurricanes and tornadoes are a major menace to the house. They sweep in unpredictably and cause damage to the area, and sometimes death. We are busy erecting dampers and windbreaks against these events as fast as we can, and the Iraqi themselves are helping more and more.
The house is being built to withstand such potentially disastrous occurrences, by going deep into bedrock to anchor the foundations, and using pleasing curves in the outer walls and roof to deflect the winds from the West. Modern services are being built also, such as pure running water, sewage disposal, net power, driveways, heat and air conditioning, telephone and TV, and access roads and driveways.
The local police have been bolstered to ensure better protection from thieves in the day and night, and the fire department has been given new equipment to fight fires rapidly and effectively. A local hospital has been built and equipped with the latest of medical marvels to save lives from the ravages of life. Schools have been built to care for the education of the children in this newest of homes for democracy.
The Iraqi have been incorporated more and more into the home from the start, and many of them are using their skills and experience to help build the house, while others are going through training to man the posts created by the Iraqi house management, and its protection forces, as well as the economy surrounding and pervading the house.
It is a huge job, and it is not finished. The 26 million Iraqis just beginning to realize the true significance of their new home, new management, new responsibilities and new opportunities. The hurricanes and tornadoes are still raging and knocking down partial structures here and there, but they grow weaker by the day, as the Iraqi themselves take hold of their fate and erect preventative measures.
We have made a commitment to stay the course, to help them finish their new home, and to teach them how to defend it well. It will be a true testament to the many lives lost while pursuing this dream of a home for democracy in Iraq, and in constructing and finishing this new, relatively safe home for millions of Iraqi. Any step less would be criminal.
There are those who insist on a date for our withdrawal from Iraq. Such a mindset not only dishonors our lost men and treasure in this noble enterprise, and all of the losses of the Iraqi themselves, but it also threatens the Iraqi with a return to their former subjugation and poverty, with their partially built home destroyed by the hurricanes and tornadoes. Further, it would embolden others to create more hurricanes and tornadoes to destroy things in their path all over the world, since we will have proven that we cannot stay the course. I would be ashamed for my country to do such a craven and cowardly thing.
We will stay the course.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Spirit
The American's Creed
The Creed is Not Often Read
"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes."
"I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
Accepted by the House on April 3, 1918; Written by William Tyler Page, Clerk of the House of Representatives
Monday, July 04, 2005
Debate Negation
Even rational discussion is thwarted.
After many months of reading and commenting on various sites I have observed a consistent approach to argumentation by leftwing believers. Behind their mode of response is an unexpressed need for moral support from their friends, so they are primarily playing to their own audience. Here are the tactics I have identified so far:
DT1. You know you are on the right track when all they can serve back is vituperation. This inevitably occurs when they have no real retort.
DT2. You will also soon realize that your most telling arguments are simply ignored. They will dig up a side aspect to challenge you with.
DT3. Another tactic is obviously to take one small part of your comment, and work on it very hard, ignoring the real content of your statements. This diverts the argument to an inconsequential subset of issues.
DT4. The next tactic is to play the sources game. Their sources are sacrosanct and yours are rubbish, by definition. Or, if you haven't posted a reference, you are in the wrong.
DT5. Yet another is to simply ignore your comment, knowing that others will take up the battle and use all of the same tactics, until you are being pulled left and right.
DT6. And then there is the caveat syndrome. You will be accused of being arrogant and overbearing if you don't use weasel words like IMO, or about, or perhaps, or approximately, etc. Again, this diverts the flow away from the argument.
DT7. The next one of these tactics is personal denigration, which is the coward's way out, but it is quite common.
DT8. And yet another tactic that occurs frequently is the oblique shift of the argument: You argue about X forcefully, and suddenly you are presented with Y, and Z off the wall, and a response is, of course, demanded. This again diverts the argument into a kind of chaos, or many-forked road, with no pattern other than to defeat you by asking for answers to questions you aren't prepared for, and then claiming you must be wrong altogether since you can't answer ALL questions.
DT9. Another tactic surfaced recently, that of the “reverse quote”. You make your statement, and they turn it around and accuse you of exactly the same thing!
DT10. Mistakes in spelling, typos, and misques in posting are also an excuse for replies that do not recognize your argument, but divert it into criticism.
DT11. The big lie! Keep repeating the same false mantra over and over again as the answer to all challenges. Or even a whole series of big lies that cover most issues is even more effective, since it is difficult to defeat 10 lies on 10 subjects all at once, and many sheep will actually believe the lies sooner than the truth, since it fits there preconceptions of what should be.
DT12. Another DT type has been showing up lately. That of a rant going on for several hundred lines, closely spaced and hard to read. In fact, most people don't get beyond the first ten lines. Seeing one of these rants seriously raises the question of sanity of one who would spend the time to write such.
In a sense, it is instructive to see these sly, dishonest, and diversionary tactics in use, to catalog them, chuckle at them, and then, simply to ignore them. There is no such thing as a rational debate, it is all about who can get in the most licks for their audience!
If you can add to my catalog, please do. It is fun to discover these tactics. I have begun to number them as above. Just like the old joke about professional comics at a convention. Someone says “Number 54”, and everyone laughs!
How grown men can post the screeds they do is beyond me; that is why I have decided it is all part of a kiddie circle response as seen from the left.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Rules for Comments
Be Constructive in Your Posts
My only rule for commenters to this blog is that they post constructive commentary, and not simply foul language and pure derision. Such posts are not helpful, not part of the learning process where both positive and negative thoughts and opinions are set forth, and they do not promote further dialogue. Hence, I will delete such posts as I deem to be merely scurrilous attacks that are without any redeeming value. I do not value foul language.
Professional Honor, Personal Pride
An Arms Developer and Merchant Stands Up
In recent days, a few pacifists have questioned and derided my former profession. Moreover, I was asked what I thought was the honor in being an arms developer and merchant. I answered this challenge with the following statement, modified to delete argumentation not relevant to this post. The only thing I would add after some reflection is the phrase …and have enormous pride …( as in, I see great honor and have enormous pride…)
I see great honor in defending one's family, one's people, and one's nation by helping the armed forces to perform their job better and better. War happens. It seems that each generation has its conflicts. "Be ready" is my motto.
I see great honor in saving our soldiers, sailors and airmen from having to fight close up and in the face of the enemy if it isn't needed, thus saving their lives and bodies from harm.
I see great honor in providing actionable battlefield and ocean intelligence about the enemy to the commanders in the field, in the air or at sea.
I see great honor in providing the troops and ships accurate and deadly direct and indirect fires, and deadly air defense systems over their heads.
I see great honor in improving battlefield, air and seagoing communications, command and control facilities to allow our forces to be better coordinated in battle.
I see great honor, in short, in helping to create an armed forces that is supreme on the battlefield, in the air and at sea.
I hope others are creating better weapons and sensors for asymmetric warfare now, since we have largely succeeded in our plans to be first on the conventional battlefield -- for the moment.
Technology is the key to the edge we currently enjoy, just as in wars immemorial: Steel beats iron beats bronze...
If my grandson, or his son, is to go to war, I want him going there with these advantages and more, the very best that can be devised. To do less would be criminal.
